HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-07-20 PC Packet
AGENDA
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, July 20, 2021
Council Chambers - Maplewood City Hall
1830 County Road B East
A.Call to Order
B.Roll Call
C.Approval of Agenda
D.Approval of Minutes
1.June 15, 2021
E.Public Hearing
1.7:00 p.m. or later: Capital Improvement Plan 2022-2026
2.7:00 p.m. or later: Variance and Conditional Use Permit Resolution, 2134 Arcade Street North
3.7:00 p.m. or later: Variance Resolution, 2010 Edgerton Street North
F.New Business
G.Unfinished Business
H.Visitor Presentations
I.Commission Presentations
J.Staff Presentations
K.Adjournment
WELCOME TO THIS MEETING OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
This outline has been prepared to help you understand the public meeting process.
The review of an item usually takes the following form:
1.The chairperson of the meeting will announce the item to be reviewed and ask for the
staff report on the subject.
2.Staff presents their report on the matter.
3.The Commission will then ask City staff questions about the proposal.
4.The chairperson will then ask the audience if there is anyone present who wishes to
comment on the proposal.
5.This is the time for the public to make comments or ask questions about the proposal.
Please step up to the podium and speak clearly. Give your name and address first and
then your comments.
6.After everyone in the audience wishing to speak has given his or her comments, the
chairperson will close the public discussion portion of the meeting.
7.The Commission will then discuss the proposal. No further public comments are allowed.
8.The Commission will then make itsrecommendation or decision.
9.All decisions by the Planning Commission are recommendations to the City Council. The
City Council makes the final decision.
keep all discussions civil as we work through difficult issues tonight. If you are here for a
Public Hearing or to address the Planning Commission, please familiarize yourself with
the Policies and Procedures and Rules of Civility, which are located near the entrance. At
Revised:02/18
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, JUNE 15, 2021
7:00 P.M.
(THIS MEETING WAS HELD REMOTELY VIA CONFERENCE CALL)
A.CALL TO ORDER
A meeting of the Commission was held and called to order at 7:01 p.m. by Chairperson Arbuckle.
B.ROLL CALL
Paul Arbuckle, Chairperson Present
Frederick Dahm, Commissioner Present
Tushar Desai, Vice Chairperson Present
John Eads, Commissioner Present
Allan Ige, Commissioner Absent
Sheryl Sukolsky, Commissioner Present
Lue Yang, Commissioner Present
Staff Present: Michael Martin, Assistant Community Development Director
Elizabeth Hammond, Planner
C.APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Commissioner Desai moved to approve the agenda as amended.
Seconded by Commissioner Eads.
The motion passed.
D.APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Desai moved to approve the April 20, 2021, PC minutes as submitted.
Seconded by Commissioner Eads.
The motion passed.
E.PUBLIC HEARING
parcels to PUD-Fixed District
existing Planned Unit Development parcels to PUD-Fixed District.
Seconded by Commissioner Dahm.
The motion passed.
This item will go to the city council on June 28, 2021.
June 15, 2021
1
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
D1
F.NEW BUSINESS
2.Election of Officers
Assistant Community Development Director, Michael Martin directed the commission to
review and elect officers.
Commissioner Dahm made a motion to nominate Commissioner Arbuckle as Chairperson.
Commissioner Dahm made a motion to nominate Commissioner Desai as Vice Chairperson.
No Second.
The motion passed.
G.UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
H.VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
None.
I.COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS
None.
J.STAFF PRESENTATIONS
1.Return to In-Person Meetings in July
Assistant Community Development Director, Michael Martin notified commission members
that in-person meetings will resume in July.
K.ADJOURNMENT
Chairperson Arbuckle adjourned the meeting at 7:40 p.m.
June 15, 2021
2
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date July 20, 2021
Melinda Coleman
REPORT TO:
REPORT FROM: Ellen Paulseth, Finance Director
PRESENTER: Ellen Paulseth, Finance Director
AGENDA ITEM: Capital Improvement Plan 2022-2026 Planning Commission Workshop
Action Requested: Motion Discussion Public Hearing
Form of Action: Resolution Ordinance Contract/Agreement Proclamation
Policy Issue:
The Capital Improvement Plan coordinates the planning, financing and timing of major equipment
purchases and construction projects. By law, the Planning Commission must review the CIP. The
City Council will consider the adoption of the CIP along with the 2022 budget in December. The role
of the Planning Commission is to ensure that the projects included within the plan are in alignment
with the Comprehensive Plan and other planning processes.
Recommended Action:
Staff recommends the approval of the draft Capital Improvement Plan by the Planning Commission.
Fiscal Impact:
Is There a Fiscal Impact? No Yes, the true or estimated cost is $66,579,721
Financing source(s): Adopted Budget Budget Modification New Revenue Source
Use of Reserves Other: n/a
Strategic Plan Relevance:
Financial Sustainability Integrated Communication Targeted Redevelopment
Operational Effectiveness Community Inclusiveness Infrastructure & Asset Mgmt.
Background
The City Council will hold a public hearing prior to adoption of the plan. The CIP will be available on
Attachments
1.PowerPoint
2.Draft CIP Projects
n
o
i
s
s
i
0
2
m
0
Debt
2
m
,
o
1
C
2
g
y
l
n
i
u
J
n
n
a
l
P
e
v
i
s
n
e
n
h
e
a
r
l
s
p
P
e
m
v
t
o
i
c
t
n
h
c
t
e
i
s
e
w
j
e
m
s
t
s
b
n
e
e
e
c
v
O
m
o
r
o
n
r
p
p
g
i
l
g
p
o
a
n
i
h
n
n
i
m
s
I
n
e
a
k
r
l
l
a
r
p
a
s
r
t
o
t
i
e
c
h
e
p
jt
W
o
o
a
r
d
p
C
n
e
a
r
u
n
s
a
l
n
Ep
s
s
e
c
o
r
P
Plan
n
Range
Sources
a
Funding
Identified
Long
l
Strategic
P
t
n
CIP
e
Needs
Year
Plan
m
Five
Identification
Capital
e
v
o
r
p
Capital
CIP
Budget
m
Annual
Implementation
I
l
a
t
i
p
a
C
g
n
i
c
n
a
n
i
F
n
a
l
P
t
n
e
m
e
v
e
t
r
o
s
n
u
t
r
t
e
n
c
e
u
p m
s
r
t
p
t
m
i
n
s
e
u
m
e
a
t
v
r
q
I
n
f
o
m
E
r
e
n
l e
I
p
d
v
m
a n
d
o
m
p
r
I
a
n
t
o
i
p
a
l
s
g
e
e
s
n
m
l
Pay-as-you-go (PAYG)Tax exempt leaseBuilding FundsDebtDebtFranchise FeesLocal Government AidMunicipal State AidPark Dedication FeesDebtTax Increment Financing
p t
v
i
I
c
e
e
i
d
k
l
a
e
i
hd
r
r
u
ee
a
t
C
VBSPR
n
a
l
P
s
t
e
)
l
n
A
p
e
G
i
L
(
c
m
d
n
i
e
i
A
r
v
t
P
o n
r e
g
t
m
p
n
n
n
r
e
i
s
m
e
t
m
I
v
d
n
i
p
o
l
e
o
s
G
u l
a
m
e
l
n
e
i
o
t
e
t
av
iG
o
i
i
G
v
c
r
e
y
t
-
t
o
p
o
oi
c
D
r
u
l
i
L
i
r
u
a
p
o
c
b
i
P
d
e
Y
a
m
l
-
e
C
ge
i
I
m
s
n
R
c
ca
i
t
o
r
A
an
t
n
e
n
-
t
e
a
b
u
e
sl
y
v
o
r
e
o
a
a
u
c
t
e
CDSLPSEB
t
g
n
i
n
r
e
a
e
H
m
n
e
g
o
i
v
n
s
i
s
r
o
i
a
r
e
m
e
p
p
H
m
o
l
n
i
o
i
h
m
c
l
C
s
I
n
k
n
e
r
g
u
l
o
i
n
o
o
it
a
m
C
n
p
t
W
i
i
n
o
y
P
t
T
a
d
I
i
l
p
CA
PC
a
n
C
a
l
11
22
6
P
00
2
22
,
,
1
0
3
3
1
2
11
2
2
0
rr
0
-
2
ee
2
,
2
bb
,
8
0
2
2
mm
2
ee
e
0
cc
y
nl
ee
2
uu
JJDD
s
r
a
e
Y
e
5
h
t
r
l
o
e
f
a
c
t
t
n
i
n
n
a
e
n
p
a
i
l
m
F
a
u
P
o
c
C
t
o
t
t
D
b
e
n
e
g
h
e
D
n
t
i
e
n
m
f
u
n
s
e a
o
l
s
I
1
v
P
2
e o
t
o
t
5
n
.
s
r
e
5
d
o
7
e
p
m
r
4
i
e
p
.
u
v
r
m
S
q
I.
o
r
u e
M
p
R
P
§
m
n
I
,
o
s
l
i
t
t
a
c
t
p
i
e
j
o
Does not authorize expendituresCouncil must authorize each item prior to spending
p
o
d
a
r
CA
P
n
a
l
P
t
n
e
y
m
r
o
e
g
e
v
t
a
o
C
r
y
b
p
s
t
c
m
e
j
I
o
r
l
P
a
P
I
t
C
i
f
o
p
y
r
a
a
C
m
m
u
6
S
2
0
2
2
2
0
2
s
n
a
l
P
P
I
C
t
6
e
2
e
0
r
2
-
t
2
S
2
0
6
2
r
2
o
f
0
s
2
e
l
-
i
2
M
2
P
I
g
0
C
n
i
2
d
v
e
a
s
15.6% of City Streets
P
o
t
p
21.05 Miles of Proposed Street ReconstructionTemporary Fix Until a CIP ProjectProvide Relief and IncreasedAdd Annual Spot Paving toRecommend $80,000/year from
the SRF Fund
is ImplementedLevel of ServicePavement Management Practices
o
o
r
p
PS
s
5
t
7
.
c
4
e
j
=
o s
t
r
n
P
e
s
t
m
s
n
t
P
e
e
I
n
v
e
o
m
C
r
e
m
p
v
t
e
o
vm
r
e I
o
p
t
r
e
t
e
p
r
mn
e
I
t
e
r
m
t
t
I
S
em
S
t
ee
e
2
r
v
2
t
e
2
a
r
S
t
0
2
P
S
2
e
0 a
f
u
y
e
o
n
2
r
m
e
s
A
e
v
e
sl
n
A
ii
e
a
e
M
v
$3,750,000 (1.09 Miles)PCI rating 41/100$4,230,000 (2.67Miles)PCI rating 45/100$4,410,000 (1.0 Miles)PCI rating 43/100
M
pr
l
c
e
a
o
t
CGM
o
T
6
2
0
2
-
2
2
0
2
s
t
c
e
j
o
r
P
r
o
j
a
M
r
e
h
t
O
Gladstone RedevelopmentPark UpgradesOpen Space ImprovementsNature Center Boardwalk ImprovementsFacility UpgradesLift Station UpgradesRice Street (Ramsey County)County Road D (Ramsey
County)White Bear Ave/Larpenteur(Ramsey County)
n
a
l
P
e
v
i
s
n
e
h
n
e
r
o
p
i
s
s
m
s
o
i
n
s
C
t
o
c
e
i
m
e
h
t
j
t
o
?
a
m
r
h
s
r
t
P
i
e
o
s
e
t
w
s
n
C
e
d
e
i
m
c
r
s
o
g
m
o
r
e
f
n
P
n
v
n
i
o
g
o
o
r
n
n
C
p
i
C
n
s
n
m
t
I
n
a
c
l
a
l
el
j
a
P
t
P
i
o
r
r
p
e
P
a
h
e
C
t
h
o
2
t
2
d
o
0
n
D2
a
?
s
n
o
i
t
s
e
u
Q
PLANNING COMMISSIONSTAFF REPORT
Meeting Date July 20, 2021
Melinda Coleman, City Manager
REPORT TO:
REPORT FROM:Elizabeth Hammond, Planner
PRESENTER:Elizabeth Hammond, Planner
Varianceand Conditional Use PermitResolution, 2134 Arcade StreetNorth
AGENDA ITEM:
Action Requested:MotionDiscussionPublic Hearing
Form of Action:ResolutionOrdinanceContract/AgreementProclamation
Policy Issue:
Input/Output Design Office, Inc. on behalf of Carol Grant (property owner) has requested a variance
and conditional use permitin order to construct an addition to the existing home on the property
located at 2134 Arcade Street North. To move forward with this project, the applicant needs city
councilapproval of the following:a variance from the required side yard setback of 20 feet, anda
conditional use permitto exceed the maximum allowed square footage for accessory structures of
2,500 sq. ft.
Recommended Action:
Motionto approve a resolution approving a side yard setbackvariance, and conditional use permit
to exceed accessory structure size standards for a proposed building additionat 2134 Arcade
StreetNorth.
Fiscal Impact:
Is There a Fiscal Impact?NoYes, the true or estimated cost is$0.
Financing source(s):Adopted BudgetBudget ModificationNew Revenue Source
Use of ReservesOther:N/A
Strategic Plan Relevance:
Financial SustainabilityIntegrated CommunicationTargeted Redevelopment
Operational EffectivenessCommunity InclusivenessInfrastructure & Asset Mgmt.
The City deemed the application complete on June 21, 2021. The initial 60-day review deadline is
August 20, 2021. As stated in Minnesota State Statute 15.99, the city is allowed to take an
additional 60 days if necessary in order to complete the review of theapplication.
Background:
Input/Output Design Office, Inc. on behalf of Carol Grant (property owner) has requested a variance
in order to construct an addition to the existing home on the property located at 2134 Arcade Street
North.The property owner wishes to construct an additionon thesouthwest corner and side of the
existing housewhich would include additional living spaceand an attached two-car garage. The
proposed addition is setback 15 feet fromthe south (side) property line. The property is located in
the RE 30, Residential Estate District.The required side yard setback for this district is 20 feet.
The proposed addition includes 598 square feet for an attached garage. The property has two
existing detached accessory structures on the property totaling 1,975 square feet. Properties in this
zoning designation are permitted to have up to 2,500 square feet of a combination of detached and
attached accessory structures. This allowance is based on the size of the parcel, with this being the
largest allowance for lots over 42,000 square feet. With the proposed third structure, the property
would exceed the allowable square footage by 73 square feet. The city council may approve an
increase inarea by conditional use permit
Setback Variance
State statute allows variances to be approved when practical difficulties exist. State statute also
dictates that practical difficulties occur when the property owner proposes to use the property in a
reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance; the plight of the landowner is due to
circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted,
will not alter the essential character of the locality.Staff has reviewed the application and findsthat
the request for the side yard setback meets the practical difficulties standarddue to the elevation
changes going north on the lot and the desire to have a reasonably sloped driveway.
Conditional Use Permit
City Code Section 44-114 (c) Accessory Buildings, allows for: The city council may approve an
increase in height or area by conditional use permit. Staff has reviewed the application and finds
that the request for an increase in area for the proposed accessory structure meets the required
general standards for a conditional use permit.
Department Comments
Engineering
Engineering has no concerns with this proposal. The applicant will be required to obtain permits
(grading/erosion control) for the proposed work.
Environmental, Environmental Health, Public Safety and Building Inspections
No comments.
Commission Review
July20, 2021: The planning commission will holda public hearing and review thisapplication.
Citizen Comments
Staff surveyed the surrounding property owners within 500 feetof the subject propertyfor their
1.Just letting you know that we do not have a problem with the request for a variance. (Richard
and Teresa Bruckner, 2158 and 2160 Arcade Street N)
2.We received your letterregarding the Grant variance.Carol had already told me about it.We
don't have any concerns on Request #2.Our neighbors also let us know they received the
letter and have shared their concerns with us. When Carol let us know about this we asked if
the property line and potential building would be staked out. I thought that was standard
procedure that way we can see exactly where it will be. Will that happen? We did measure it
but not 100% sure we have it correct.Request #1 Concerns:There is a row of pine trees that
follow the property line, we believe they fall on our side. Will some of them need to come
down to build the addition? We would prefer they not be interrupted.I have seen the plans
prior to this and know there is a deck off the back, will that fall within the same boundaries?
The Nelson's claim they have a 10ft easement access to the lake on the Grant property line
and it will prohibit their (or a future resident) access. They are trying to locate the
documentation for this and may reach out to you directly. (Toni Amenrud,855 Burke Ct. E)
3.We have reviewed the documents that request two variances for Carol Grant, 2134 Arcade
Street and we have no objections. (Scott Strobel and Sarah Taylor, 2144 Arcade Street N)
Reference Information
Site Description
Site Size: 1.90acres
Surrounding Land Uses
North:Low Density Residential
East:Keller Lake
South: Low Density Residential
West: Low Density Residential
Planning
Existing Land Use: Low Density Residential
Existing Zoning: RE 30, Residential Estate
Attachments:
1.Varianceand Conditional Use PermitResolution
2.Overview Map
3.2040 Future Land Use Map
4.Zoning Map
VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, as follows:
Section 1. Background.
1.01Input/Output Design Office, Inc. on behalf of Carol Grant (property owner) has
requested approval of a variance and conditional use permitfor the property located
at 2134 Arcade Street North.
1.02 A varianceis requestedto the required side yard setback. The required setback is 20
feet, and the applicant is proposing to construct the addition 15 feet from the side
property line.
1.03A conditional use permitis requested toexceedthe maximum allowed square
footage that is permitted for accessory structures in the zoning district. The property
is permitted to have up to 2,500 square feet of attached and detached accessory
structure space. The applicant is requesting to have an additional 73 square feet of
accessory structure area, for a total of 2,573 square feet.
1.04The propertylocated at 2134 Arcade Street North islegally described as:
PID# 092922330013 / TORRENS / Torrens Certificate No. 534406:
The North 103.65 feet of the South 212.29 feet of that part of the Southwest Quarter
of the Southwest Quarter of Section 9, Township 29 North, Range 22 West, Ramsey
County, Minnesota, lying West of a line described as follows:
Commencing at a point on theSouth line of said Section 9 a distance of 780 feet
East of the Southwest corner of said Section 9 and running at a bearing of North 21
degrees, 58 minutes East a distance of 181.85 feet; thence North 2 degrees, Setting
survey markers or verifying existing survey markers to establish the corners of the
property. 19 minutes West a distance of 43.68 feet to a point 212.29 feet due North
of said South line of Section 9, according to the United States Government Survey
thereof.
Section 2. Standards.
2.01Variance Standard. City Ordinance Section 44-13refers to state statutewhich states
a variance may be grantedfrom the requirements of the zoning ordinance when: (1)
the variance is inharmony with the general purposes and intent of this ordinance; (2)
when thevariance is consistent with the comprehensive plan; and (3) when the
applicantestablishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the
ordinance. Practical difficulties mean: (1) the proposed use is reasonable; (2) the
need for a variance is caused by circumstances unique to the property, not created
by theproperty owner, and not solely based oneconomic conditions; (3) the
variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
2.02Conditional Use PermitStandard. City Ordinance Section 44-1097. The City Council
must base approval of a Conditional Use Permit on the following nine standards of
approval.
1.The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be
2.The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding
area.
3.The use would not depreciate property values.
4.The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipmentor methods
ofoperation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or
cause anuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare,
smoke, dust,odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run-off,
vibration, generalunsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances.
5.The use would not exceed the design standards of any affected street.
6.The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including
streets,police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems,
schoolsand parks.
7.The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or
services.
andscenic features into the development design.
9.The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects.
Section 3. Findings.
3.01Thevariance request meetsthe required standards for a variance.
3.02Theconditional use permit request meets the required standards for a conditional
use permit.
Section 4. CityReview Process
4.01The City conducted the following review when considering the variance requests.
1.OnJuly 20, 2021, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff
published a hearing notice in the Pioneer Press and sent notices to the surrounding
property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance
to speak and present written statements. The planning commission recommended
that the city council ___________this resolution.
2.OnAugust 9, 2021, the city council discussed this resolution. Theyconsidered
reports and recommendations from the planning commission and citystaff.
Section 5. City Council
5.01The city council hereby _______the resolution. Approval is based on the findings
outlined in section 3 of this resolution. Approval is subject to the following conditions:
1.The projectmust be started within one year of council approval or theapproval
will become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year
upon request.
2.The applicantshall obtain any required permits from the City of Maplewood.
__________by the City Council of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, on August 9, 2021.
Overview Map - 2134 Arcade St N
June 23, 2021
City of Maplewood
Legend
0190
Feet
Source: City of Maplewood, Ramsey County
2040 Future Land Use Map - 2134 Arcade Street North
July 8, 2021
City of Maplewood
Legend
Low Density Residential
Public/Institutional
Open Space
Park
0390
Feet
Source: City of Maplewood, Ramsey County
Zoning Map - 2134 Arcade Street North
July 8, 2021
City of Maplewood
Legend
Single Dwelling (r1)
Residential Estate - 30,000 sq.ft (re30)
Farm (f)
Open Space/Park
0390
Feet
Source: City of Maplewood, Ramsey County
I/O Design Office
th
222 W. 77 St., Suite 101D
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(612)812-9577
7 June 2021
Planning Division
Department of Community Development
City of Maplewood
1902 County Road B East
Maplewood, MN 55109
Addendum to Variance Application Request for 2134 Arcade St. N, Maplewood, MN
Legal Description:
PARCEL 1 / PID# 092922330013 / TORRENS / Torrens Certificate No. 534406:
The North 103.65 feet of the South 212.29 feet of that part of the Southwest Quarter of the
Southwest Quarter of Section 9, Township 29 North, Range 22 West, Ramsey County,
Minnesota, lying West of a line described as follows:
Commencing at a point on the South line of said Section 9 a distance of 780 feet East of the
Southwest corner of said Section 9 and running at a bearing of North 21 degrees, 58 minutes
East a distance of 181.85 feet; thence North 2 degrees, Setting survey markers or verifying
existing survey markers to establish the corners of the property. 19 minutes West a distance
of 43.68 feet to a point 212.29 feet due North of said South line of Section 9, according to the
United States Government Survey thereof.
PARCEL 2 / PID# 092922330014 / ABSTRACT:
The West 173 feet of the South 108.64 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest
Quarter of Section 9, Township 29 North, Range 22 West, Ramsey County, Minnesota.
AND
The West 173 feet of the North 34.24 feet of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter
of Section 16, Township 29 North, Range 22 West, Ramsey County, Minnesota.
Variance Requests:
Request #1
Variance for zoning code ordinance, Section 44-154c1
Variance Request:
15
which includes a new bedroom and 2-car garage.
Practical Difficulty:
In order to create a modest attached 2-car garage for the home, the most effective placement
of the addition is the south side of the property, adjoining the west side of the existing home.
The existing topography of the site is such that much of the northern part of the property
slopes down toward the neighbor to the north. The result is a reduced area for an addition
and autocourt to allow for reasonable access and safety for daily use. The homeowner plans
to live in this home (which her grandfather designed and her father built) for their remaining
years and would like the attached garage to avoid navigating icy walks and uneven terrain
along with any and all perils associated.
As this lot is only 103 feet in width, the current 20 foot setback narrows the buildable width of
the lot by nearly 40%. The parcel is currently zoned as RE-3. However for all new parcels
with a lot width less than 120 feet, the designation is RE-2, which would provide for the
requested 15 foot setback (see chart under section 44-154b & 44-154c). Given the relatively
narrow lot width, pulling a vehicle in and out of the proposed garage addition is onerous under
the current restrictions. Additionally, reducing the garage depth will prohibit ownership of
certain SUVs and other vehicles. Such limitations represent a practical difficulty for this
particular parcel, it's existing topography, and the current zoning code.
Given current expectations for homes in Minnesota, having a 2-car garage attached to the
home has become an standard minimum feature and is in keeping with the wants and needs
of the average homeowner and home purchaser. Similarly, the character of the addition is
such that it will appear seamless and consistent with wood siding, new windows, and a simple
gable roof to match the existing home details. Once completed, the addition / renovation will
not only bring the home up to current standards, but improve the overall quality and
presentation of this home for neighboring properties.
Last, there is a detached structure, near the existing home, which is located 12 feet from the
property line. By placing the addition in it's proposed location, the buildings are more closely
related and the proposed addition serves to mediate the proximity between the 2 existing
structures. With all three components (existing home, proposed addition, existing detached
storage/workshop) sharing a similar character in exterior materials and simple roof forms, the
net result is similar to a small villa, with each building having it's own definition but directly
relating to the greater whole.
Request #2
Variance for zoning code ordinance, Section 44-114a
Variance Request:
We request a variance from the existing maximum allowed area for detached and attached
accessory structures of 2,500 square feet of 73 square feet for a net total of approximately
2,573 square feet. This would allow for a reasonable sized 2-car garage attached to the
existing home.
Practical Difficulty:
The parcel already has two accessory structures- a storage building at the bottom of the hill to
the west and a detached workshop/storage building closer to the existing home (see survey
and/or site plan). Based upon the survey dimensions, the total area for the two detached
structures is approximately 1,975 square feet. The proposed addition has a 2-car garage with
a total area of 598 square feet. Thus, the proposed total area of attached and detached
would be 2,573 square feet. Per the table in section 44-114a, this parcel is allowed a total of
2,500 square feet (due to overall lot area exceeding 42,000 square feet). Our request is for
an additional 73 square feet to accommodate a typical 2-car garage or in other metrics, an
increase in allowable area of 2.9%.
Our request would allow for a condition which is common for most homes- an attached 2-car
garage which can fit two full-sized vehicles comfortably. In addition, our hope is to facilitate
accessibility and to minimize hazards for the current and future owners of the property.
As shown in the previous calculations, much of the allowable area is taken up by the existing
accessory structures on the site. In lieu of requiring the demolition of one of the existing
accessory buildings, our request is to keep those structures as they stand and allow for a very
small increase of allowable area (an increase of 73 square feet or 2.9%, as indicated in our
calculations).
As the requested increase is marginal relative to the allowable area, we believe there will be
no discernible difference in character by granting the variance. The exterior materials will
unify the existing home, proposed addition and detached workshop to present a simple,
elegant home that matches today's expectations for amenities by homeowners.
SHEET 1 OF 1
S1
NOVEMBER 10, 2020NOVEMBER 10, 2020
## 42379
LICENSE NO.DATE
NOVEMBER 10, 2020
Thomas M. Bloom
which is a legal matter. Please check the legal description with your records orthe survey.would be revealed by a current title commitment. Therefore, this survey doesnot purport to
show any easements or encumbrances other than the ones shownhereon.the topography of the site. We have also provided a benchmark for your use in
above. The scope of our services does not include determining what you own,consult with competent legal counsel, if necessary, to make sure that it is correctand that any matters of
record, such as easements, that you wish to be includedon the survey have been shown.corners of the property.commitment. There may be existing easements or other encumbrances thatdetermining
elevations for construction on this site. The elevations shown relateonly to the benchmark provided on this survey. Use that benchmark and check atleast one other feature shown on the
survey when determining other elevationsfor use on this site or before beginning construction.lines, are taken from the siding and or stucco of the building.
" Denotes iron survey marker, set, unless otherwise noted.
2.Showing the location of observed existing improvements we deem necessary for4.This survey has been completed without the benefit of a current title
SCOPE OF WORK & LIMITATIONS:3.Setting survey markers or verifying existing survey markers to establish the5.Showing elevations on the site at selected locations to give some indication
of6.Note that all building dimensions and building tie dimensions to the propertySTANDARD SYMBOLS & CONVENTIONS:"
1.Showing the length and direction of boundary lines of the legal description listed
17917 Highway 7
Phone (952) 474-7964
Web: www.advsur.com
Minnetonka, Minnesota 55345
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:PARCEL 1 / PID# 092922330013 / TORRENS / Torrens Certificate No.The North 103.65 feet of the South 212.29 feet of that part of the SouthwestQuarter of the Southwest
Quarter of Section 9, Township 29 North, Range 22West, Ramsey County, Minnesota, lying West of a line described as follows:Commencing at a point on the South line of said Section 9
a distance of 780 feetEast of the Southwest corner of said Section 9 and running at a bearing of North21 degrees, 58 minutes East a distance of 181.85 feet; thence North 2 degrees,thereof.PARCEL
2 / PID# 092922330014 / ABSTRACT:The West 173 feet of the South 108.64 feet of the Southwest Quarter of theCounty, Minnesota.ANDThe West 173 feet of the North 34.24 feet of the Northwest
Quarter of theNorthwest Quarter of Section 16, Township 29 North, Range 22 West, RamseyCounty, Minnesota.
534406:South line of Section 9, according to the United States Government SurveySouthwest Quarter of Section 9, Township 29 North, Range 22 West, Ramsey
19 minutes West a distance of 43.68 feet to a point 212.29 feet due North of said
60
30
0
Arcade Street
LEGEND
PLANNING COMMISSIONSTAFF REPORT
Meeting Date July 20, 2021
Melinda Coleman, City Manager
REPORT TO:
REPORT FROM:Elizabeth Hammond, Planner
PRESENTER:Elizabeth Hammond, Planner
Variance Resolution, 2010 EdgertonStreetNorth
AGENDA ITEM:
Action Requested:MotionDiscussionPublic Hearing
Form of Action:ResolutionOrdinanceContract/AgreementProclamation
Policy Issue:
Bruce and Denise Wold (property owners) have requested avariance to the required minimum lot
widthfor an interior lot in order to subdivide the existing property located at 2010 Edgerton Street
North. The required minimum lot width standard is60 feet at the front lot line along Edgerton Street.
The applicantis proposing to create asecond lot, with awidth of 34 feet at the front lot line.To
move forward with this project, the applicant needs city council approval of the following:avariance
to allow a lot width of 34 feet.
Recommended Action:
Motionto approve a resolution denying a variance request to create a lot 34 feet in width for the
property located at 2010 EdgertonStreetNorth.
Fiscal Impact:
Is There a Fiscal Impact?NoYes, the true or estimated cost is$0.
Financing source(s):Adopted BudgetBudget ModificationNew Revenue Source
Use of ReservesOther:N/A
Strategic Plan Relevance:
Financial SustainabilityIntegrated CommunicationTargeted Redevelopment
Operational EffectivenessCommunity InclusivenessInfrastructure & Asset Mgmt.
The City deemed the application complete on June 29, 2021. The initial 60-day review deadline is
August 28, 2021. As stated in Minnesota State Statute 15.99, the city is allowed to take an
additional 60 days if necessary in order to complete the review of theapplication.
Background:
Bruce and Denise Wold (property owners) have requested avariance to the required minimum lot
widthstandard in order to subdivide the existing property located at 2010 Edgerton Street North,
creating a second lot 34 feet in width.The request for the lot width variance would allow the
property owners to proceed with a lot division application to formally subdivide the parcel, build a
new residential home on the new lot, and sell the existing property. However, if the variance is not
and design standards requirenewly subdivided lots to be a minimum of 60 feet at the front lot line
(Edgerton Street).In addition,the property is located in a shoreland overlay district and the north
section is located in a wetland. City code requires that lots within a shoreland overlay district be 75
feet in width.
Lot width Variance
State statute allows variances to be approved when practical difficulties exist. State statute also
dictates that practical difficulties occur when the property owner proposes to use the property in a
reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance; the plight of the landowner is due to
circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted,
will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Staff has reviewed the application and findsthe request tocreate a lot 34 feet in widthdoes not
meet the practical difficulties standardwhich must be applied. The existing circumstances are not
unique tothis propertyand a 34 foot wide lot at the front property line along Edgerton, is out of
character for the neighborhood. Further, the proposal would not be in harmony with city goals and
policies outlined in the comprehensive plan and official controls, given the needfor a shoreland
overlay district variance.
Department Comments
Engineering, Environmental Health, Public Safety and Building Inspections
No comments.
Environmental
and Ordinance classifies Lake Oehrlein as a Class
IV Water.
a. Lot Width: Class IV Waters require a 75-foot lot width. The proposed lot division will
b.Building Setback: Class IV Waters require a minimum building setback from the ordinary
high water mark of 75 feet. The survey reflects that the new buildings including the house
and workshop meet the required 75-foot setback.
c. Development of the Lot: Development of the lot must comply with all other Shoreland
Ordinance requirements as outlined in City Code.
2.Wetland Ordinance:
wetland. City code requires a 50-foot (75-foot) buffer tobe maintained along a Manage B
wetland that is adjacent a lake. There is no building, grading, or mowing allowed within the
wetland buffer. The survey reflects that the new buildings and development maintain a 75-
foot setback to thelake. However, to ensure there is no grading within the buffer, the
applicant shall submit a grading plan showing the grading lineadjacent the lake. If there is
grading within the required buffer, a wetland buffer variance will be required for the
development of the new lot.
b.Wetland Signs: At least three wetland buffer signs shall be installed along the wetland
buffer edge. The City manufactures the signs and charges the applicant a fee of $30 per
sign. The signs identify the buffer and that there is no building, grading, or mowing allowed.
ordinance. The applicant shall submit a tree plan showing all significant trees on the lot, and which
of those trees will be removed with development. Tree replacement may be required.
Commission Review
July20, 2021: The planning commission will holda public hearing and review thisapplication.
Citizen Comments
Staff surveyed the surrounding property owners within 500 feetof the subject propertyfor their
1.We received this variance application just before a holiday weekend with little time to review
and respond. Is this the usual comment period? We do not approve of this deviation from
the large lot sizes so valued in our neighborhood. The available space along Edgerton is
insufficient for off street parking and access to the premises for emergency vehicles. There
is no sidewalk along Edgerton and parked cars would make for unsafe walking and biking.
There is already plenty of traffic on the street and increasing the population density will
degrade the environment both on the street and along the lake, which is home to a valued
population of wildlife. We worry that this development would open our neighborhood to
further degradation by this kind of development. There are many large lots that could follow
in succession if this precedent is allowed.(Ken and Camille Johnson, 1994 Payne Avenue)
2.My home is on Oehrline Lake, at 673 Belmont Lane E. My biggest concern about this
variance request is that it means a significant change in the wildlife habitat for this area,
which is of great importance to us and many others in this area. The affected area on the
south shore of the lake is the single largest natural area adjacent to this lake, and is an area
of great importance to birds, waterfowl, deer -all important reasons we enjoy living here.
The proposed changes would have significant and long range effects.(Ronald F. Ofstead,
673 Belmont Lane E)
The Wolds are fine neighbors and active members of Oehrlines Lake Association. I would
be sad to see them leave the neighborhood. I helped establish the Oehrlines Lake
Association because lake ownerson Oehrlines are passionate about their unique
neighborhood and semi-rural setting. I am still the unofficial head of the organization. For
thirty years, I have organized lakeshore owners, working with the DNR and with Lake
Management of Marine on St. Croix, to try and keep the lake healthy. As neighbors, we
know each other and alert each other to anything unusual we observe on the lake and to
any variances or City plans that will affect the lake and this unique neighborhood. I am
troubled that we learned only last Saturday, on a holiday weekend, about the variance
request for 2010 Edgerton. Asking for comments by tomorrow, July 6, gives us little time to
reflect, let alone talk to one another. Many residents are away, and those of us who have
talked to one another are uncertain how many residents even received your mailing. What
some neighbors are discussing, and I hope the City will examine, is whether a variance to
allow for a long driveway will impact adjacent neighbors, will change the character of what
about 80 years ago was deliberately platted to create open space adjacent to the lake, and
will set a precedent others may follow to subdivide and develop their lots on Oehrlines Lake.
I had the opportunity to talk with Dr. Ostergren, who was in his 80s, before he sold his house
to the Wolds in 1997. He told me how deliberately he had platted the many acres he owned
along Edgerton Street, selling some to others,to deter overdevelopment and preserve open
space on and around Oehrlines Lake.People move to Oehrlines for its semi-rural character.
I am wondering how many neighbors, adjacent to or across the lake from the proposed
second Wold house, built or bought where they did on the assumption there would always
be open space. We all know there are lot size standards precluding a long driveway being
laid from Edgerton Street. For some neighbors, changing that rule is shocking, as much as
they like Bruce and Denise.Please allow sufficient time for all interested homeowners on
and around Oehrlines to weigh in before you report to the planning commission and the City.
In closing, let me express my personal questions about the proposed second house with
regard to sewer and water: how will sewer services and water reach a house over 300 feet
from the street at a point where the land elevations drop? Will the hillside be re-contoured?
Will there be a pumping station? Septic system? What will be the environmental impact on
Oehrlines Lake? These questions concern me. Thank you for inviting comments, for
listening, and for postponing reporting to the commission and City until residents on and
around Oehrlines can weigh in. I have told residents who contacted me today that I would
ask you to extend the time for feedback.(Dianne Del Giorno, 655 East Belmont Lane)
4.We are very grateful to Bruce and Denise Wold. Their large lot has been a great sanctuary
for wildlife and beauty.It is very close to our lot, so for those reasons we hope the lot
remains unchanged. We also believe the wildlife would be thankful if the Wolds leave their
lot unchanged. Thank you for your consideration.(Susan and James Barnett, 660 E
Belmont Ln)
5.We have no objection to the variance requested by Bruce and Dennis Wold. We appreciate
their stewardship of the land and lakeshore.(Patricia and Thomas Galligher, 1989 Payne
Ave)
6.We are opposed to the issue of a variance for purpose of adding another home on the Lake
Oehrline shoreline.The aquatic vegetation has become overwhelming in the last few years.
Removal of the existing 100 year old trees to erect a home and surrounding grass lawn will
only add to the vegetation problem due to the use of more fertilizer run off into the lake. We
request thatyou seriously consider our position.(Bob and Sandy Jones, 650 E Belmont Ln)
7.I received the notice regarding 2010 Edgerton and read the plans and proposal. I support
the home owners plan to create 2 lots and subdivide their land. Thank you for seeking
feedback, I appreciate it!(Peggy Bloomstrand, 1981 Lee Street)
8.Paul Nelson and I own the property at 2004 Edgerton St. Thank you for your letter
requesting feedback on Bruce and Denise Wold's application for a variance to the lot width
requirement.We havecarefully studied the Wold's request and the attached planning
documents. We oppose the variance request. If additional information is required, we would
be happy to provide a list of factors we considered in our opinion on this matter.(Kaz
Nelson, 2004 Edgerton Street)
9.We have no concerns -thank you!(Beth Lingren Clark, address not provided)
10.This email is in response to your letter dated July 1, which we received July 3 (in the middle
of the 4th of July weekend).It asks for a very prompt response, stating that you need
response comments by July 6.We appreciate the notification and request for our response,
and for the enclosed maps, which indicate the location of the lakeside lot for which variance
is requested.While the request is for a variance exception from 75 feet on the lot width
facing Edgerton, to downsize to 34 feet, in order to create a second lot to build their desired
proposed house, an exceptionally long driveway of 12 feet by 250 feet down to the lake
behind their current home is in the proposed plan.It is obvious that there will be
environmental impact, both known and unknown.The known is that the lakeshore part of
that lot is currently a wooded home to wildlife.The unknown impact, which is more
concerning, is whether the elevationof the proposed house site is high enough to not cause
future sewage contamination of this Maplewood Lake, Lake Oehrlines.Because the
elevation of Edgerton Street is definitely higher than the proposed site, and the distance
from that site back to Edgerton and its main sewage line is uphill and long, our concern
would be future sewage backup/and or overflow.Please take into consideration these
concerns when evaluating whether or not to grant an ordinance for a second lot down to the
lake from Edgerton Street.Thank you for your consideration of these environmental
concerns.(Demetri and Joanne Halatsis, 661 Belmont Ln E)
11.This is Anthony and Germaine Rodriguez at 2049 Edgerton Street.We just wanted to give
our support for the Variance request at 2010 Edgerton Street. We believe that it is Expedient
for this property for the safety and ease of access for this couple and for any emergency
vehicles. Thank you so very much.(Anthony and Germaine Rodriguez, 2049 Edgerton
Street)
12.My apologies for sending you this letter past the July 6th deadline. My husband and I have
been away on vacation, and upon returning, we've needed a few days to consider the matter
of Bruce and Denise's request to divide their property and build a new home on the back-
half, facing Oehrline Lake.While I admit, my first reaction was disappointment and fear over
losing what is now a gorgeous view of pristine woods from our kitchen and back deck; my
husband and I have talked with Bruce and Denise, reviewed their plans, and decided that
their new house will be nestled far enough away from the lakeshore to not affect our view
that much. Therefore, it would be a shame to deny them their dreams for our selfish
reasons. As such, we endorse their plans to move forward. Please feel free to contact me
with any questions or concerns.(Anne Marie and ToddForrester, 2032 Edgerton Street)
Reference Information
Site Description
Site Size: 2.86acres
Surrounding Land Uses
North:Low Density Residential
East:Low Density Residential
South: Low Density Residential
West: Multiple Dwelling and Parks and Open Space
Planning
Existing Land Use: Low Density Residential
Existing Zoning: R1, Residential Single Dwelling
Attachments:
1.Setback Variance Resolution
2.Overview Map
3.2040 Future Land Use Map
4.Zoning Map
VARIANCE RESOLUTION
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, as follows:
Section 1. Background.
1.01Bruce and Denise Wold (property owners) have requested a variance to the required
minimum lot width in order to subdivide the existing property located at 2010
Edgerton Street North.
1.02A varianceis requestedtoallow a lot width of 34 feet.
1.03The propertylocated at 2010 EdgertonStreet North islegally described as:
PID# 172922130078
The North 320 feet of the West Half of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast
Quarter of Section 17, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota,
EXCEPT the North 182 feet of the West 195 feet thereof and ALSO EXCEPT the
East 145 thereof.
Section 2.Standards.
2.01Variance Standard. City Ordinance Section 44-13refers to state statutewhich states
a variance may be grantedfrom the requirements of the zoning ordinance when: (1)
the variance is inharmony with the general purposes and intent of this ordinance; (2)
when thevariance is consistent with the comprehensive plan; and (3) when the
applicantestablishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the
ordinance. Practical difficulties mean: (1) the proposed use is reasonable; (2) the
need for avariance is caused by circumstances unique to the property, not created
by theproperty owner, and not solely based oneconomic conditions; (3) the
variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Section 3. Findings.
3.01The variance request for a lot width of 34 feet does not meet the required standards
for a variance. Staff does notfind:
1.That the need for avariance is caused by circumstances unique to the
property, not created by thepropertyowner, and not solely based on
economic conditions;
2.That the need for a variance is in harmony with the general purposes
and intent of this ordinance; and
3.That the variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Section 4. CityReview Process
4.01The City conducted the following review when considering the variance requests.
1.OnJuly 20, 2021, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff
published a hearing notice in the Pioneer Pressand sent notices to the surrounding
property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance
to speak and present written statements. The planning commission recommended
that the city council ___________this resolution.
2.On August 9, 2021, the city council discussed this resolution. Theyconsidered
reports and recommendations from the planning commission and citystaff.
Section 5. City Council
5.01The city council hereby _______the resolution. Denial of the applicationis based on
the findings outlined in section 3 of this resolution.
__________by the City Council of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, on August 9, 2021.
Overview Map - 2010 Edgerton St N
June 29, 2021
City of Maplewood
Legend
0390
Feet
Source: City of Maplewood, Ramsey County
2040 Future Land Use Map - 2010 Edgerton Street North
July 8, 2021
City of Maplewood
Legend
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
Public/Institutional
0390
Feet
Source: City of Maplewood, Ramsey County
Zoning Map - 2010 Edgerton Street North
July 7, 2021
City of Maplewood
Legend
Subject Parcel
Single Dwelling (r1)
Double Dwelling (r2)
Multiple Dwelling (r3)
Farm (f)
Open Space/Park
0390
Feet
Source: City of Maplewood, Ramsey County